thats not up to us. its up to the state and the student body. they both already said no
what covers this is getting people to your games. separating rcaf to a private entity. hiring competent fund raisers. giving people a reason to join. getting students involved with private donations. early alumni groups with benefits for staying involved. going after the everyday joe with promotions. raising enrollment. developing the real estate around the fields. increasing student housing and having a lively on campus experience. alumni association getting off of their asses. rcaf board have some motivation other than how they get to their suite. getting the gameday and tailgating atmosphere right. or in other words admins doing their ____ing jobs
Looking closer at the numbers, here's overall revenue.
Media rights grew and will get larger with new media contract.
$40,091
$1,260,000
$1,184,738
$1,253,265
Donations is up and down.
$7,128,275
$4,628,155
$4,962,106
$5,211,463
Ticket sales had a huge drop.
$2,390,440
$2,210,502
$1,538,645
$806,993
This is how I kinda think things went down as well. If they supposedly had/ could come up with 3 mil to keep Napier, they couldn't have hired someone with a far better resume? After seeing what Billy did here, you don't think the top coordinators weren't salivating at the opportunity to come here for their first coaching gig. On top of that, the hard work was already done. Nothing coming out of the mouths of this administration, or some of its outside mouthpieces, makes any sense. Something stinks. We can all smell the dead body, but we just can't locate it.
hate to say this but yall make some valid points
"This thread, with mounds of accurate and supplemental information is killing you, isn't?"
Actually, no.
"I don't think we did that. I believe the budget set was $750,000 and the target was CMD because with him, you get a lot more intangibles that you would not get with any other candidate at that salary."
This is your response to me an another post.
You "think" and "believe." Not "I know."
Vic, you've setting up a strawman argument. I don't think your intent is to denigrate Mike, or even his hiring, but your basic argument is that we could only afford $750,000. I even recall you saying we couldn't afford $750,001.
I don't think this is the case.
This entire thread is your supposition you try to insist is fact.
When in fact, it appears to just be your opinion.
I have seen lots of things posted here but not one of them has refuted that fact in any way.
It is what we paid, so to say there was more without evidence becomes nothing more than a red herring.
It is a hard burden to refute what in fact has been done.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)